JS, History, 1838–1856, vol. D-1, created 4 July 1845–4 Feb. 1846 and 1 July 1854–2 May 1855; handwriting of , Robert L. Campbell, and ; 275 pages, plus 6 pages of addenda; CHL. This is the fourth volume of a six-volume manuscript history of the church. This fourth volume covers the period from 1 Aug. 1842 to 1 July 1843; the remaining five volumes, labeled A-1, B-1, C-1, E-1 and F-1, continue through 8 Aug. 1844.
Historical Introduction
History, 1838–1856, volume D-1, constitutes the fourth of six volumes documenting the life of Joseph Smith and the early years of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The series is also known as the Manuscript History of the Church and was originally published serially from 1842 to 1846 and 1851 to 1858 as the “History of Joseph Smith” in the Times and Seasons and Deseret News. This volume contains JS’s history from 1 August 1842 to 1 July 1843, and it was compiled after JS’s death.
The material recorded in volume D-1 was initially compiled under the direction of church historian , with the assistance of . After Richards’s death in 1854, continued work on the volume as the new church historian with Bullock’s continued help. The process adopted by Richards and Bullock involved Richards creating a set of rough draft notes and Bullock transcribing the notes into the volume along with the text of designated documents (such as letters and meeting minutes). George A. Smith followed a similar pattern, though he dictated the draft notes to Bullock and other scribes.
According to the Church Historian’s Office journal, finished the third volume of the series, volume C-1, on Thursday, 3 July 1845, in , Illinois. He began work on the fourth volume, D-1, the next day, beginning on page 1362 with the entry for 1 August 1842. (The pages in volumes A-1–E-1 were numbered consecutively.) Bullock continued work on the record, drawing upon ’s draft notes, until 3 February 1846—the day before D-1 and the other volumes were packed up in preparation for the Latter-day Saints’ exodus from Nauvoo. At that point he had reached page 1485 with the entry for 28 February 1843. Subsequently, apparently after the collection had arrived in Utah, Bullock added a brief comment beneath that entry: “end of W. Richard’s compiling[.] the books packed Feby. 4— 1846 in Nauvoo[.] Miles Romney— present. The records carried by T Bullock from Winter Quarters to G S L [Great Salt Lake] City in 1848.”
A notation at the top of page 1486 reports that “the books were unpacked in G. S. L. City by and . June 7. 1853. J[onathan] Grimshaw & Miles Romney present.” Vertically, in the margin, is a poignant epitaph: “Decr. 1 1853 Dr. Willard Richards wrote one line of History—being sick at the time—and was never able to do any more.” With Richards’s death on 11 March 1854, JS’s cousin was called to the office of church historian. The notation on the top of page 1486 acknowledges this change in officers, noting, “commencement of George A. Smith’s compiling as Historian. April 13. 1854[.] [C]ommenced copying July 1. 1854.” From mid-April to the end of June 1854, George A. Smith, in collaboration with Thomas Bullock, worked on the draft notes for the history before a new scribe, , resumed writing in D-1 on 1 July 1854, beginning with the entry for 1 March 1843.
continued transcribing intermittently into the late fall of 1854, when he was assigned other duties in the Historian’s Office. He had reached page 1546 with the entry for 5 May 1843. Work resumed in February 1855 in the hand of Robert L. Campbell, recently returned from a mission. He concluded volume D-1 on the morning of 2 May 1855 and began writing in E-1 that afternoon.
The 274 pages of volume D-1 contain a record of much that is significant in the life of JS and the development of the church he founded. Among these events are
• JS’s 6 August 1842 prophecy that the Saints would become a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains.
•JS’s 8 August 1842 arrest on a warrant for being “an accessory before the fact” to an attack on former governor .
• ’s 17 August 1842 letter to governor , pleading for the humane treatment of her husband and family.
•JS’s 1 and 6 September 1842 instructions regarding the proper procedures for performing baptisms for the dead.
• JS’s 15 November 1842 “Valedictory” as he stepped down as editor of the Times and Seasons.
• The 26 December 1842 arrest of JS on a “proclamation” by former governor , and subsequent hearing in , Illinois.
• The 7 February 1843 recovery of a volume of patriarchal blessings given by , which had been stolen in , Missouri.
• JS’s 21 February 1843 remarks regarding the and .
• JS’s 2 April 1843 instruction at , Illinois, on the nature of God and other subjects.
• JS’s 16 May 1843 remarks at , Illinois, on the everlasting covenant and eternal marriage.
• The account of JS’s 23 June 1843 arrest and his hearing the following week at .
commonly called the Mormon Prophet, was accessary before the fact of the intended [HC 5:226] murder, and that the said Joseph Smith is a citizen or resident of the State of .” This affidavit is certified by the Governor of to be authentic. The affidavit being thus verified, furnished the only evidence upon which the of could act Smith presented affidavits proving that he was not in at the date of the shooting of . This testimony was objected to by the Attorney General of— , on the ground that the Court could not look behind the return. The Court deems it unnecessary to decide that point, inasmuch as it thinks Smith entitled to his discharge for defect in the affidavit. To authorize the arrest in this case the affidavit should have stated distinctly. 1st. That Smith had committed a crime. 2nd. That he committed it in . It must appear that he fled from to authorize the Governor of to demand him, as none other than the Governor of the State from which he fled can make the demand. He could not have fled—— from justice, unless he committed a crime, which does not appear. It must appear that the crime was committed in to warrant the of in ordering him to be sent to for trial. The 2nd Section, 4th. Article, declares he— “shall be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.” As it is not charged that the crime was committed by Smith in , the of could not cause him to be removed to that , unless it can be maintained <that> the State of—— can entertain jurisdiction of crimes committed in other States. The Affirmative of this proposition was taken in the argument with a zeal indicating— sincerity. But no adjudged case or dictum was adduced in support of it. The Court conceives that none can be. Let it be tested by principle. Man in a state of nature is a sovereign, with all the prerogatives of King, Lords and Commons. He may— declare War and make peace, and as nations often do who “feel power and forget right,” may oppress, rob and subjugate his weaker and unoffending neighbors. He unites in—— his person the legislative, judicial, and executive power.—— “Can do no wrong,” because there is none to hold him to account. But when he unites himself with a community, he lays down all the prerogatives of sovereign (except self defence,) and becomes a subject.—— He owes obedience to its laws and the judgments of its tribunals, which he is supposed to have participated in establishing, either directly or indirectly. He surrenders also the right of self redress. In consideration of all, which, he is entitled to the aegis of that community to defend him from wrongs. He takes upon himself no allegiance to any other community, so owes it no obedience, and therefore [HC 5:227] cannot disobey it. None—— other than his own sovereign can prescribe a rule of action to him. Each sovereign regulates the conduct of its subjects, and they may be furnished upon the assumption that they know the rule and have consented to be governed by it, it would be a gross—— violation of the social compact, if the State where were to deliver up one of its citizens to be tried and punished by a foreign State, to which he owes no allegiance, and whose laws were never binding on him, No State can or will do it. In the absence of the constitutional provision, the State of would stand on this subject in the same relation to the State of , that Spain does to . In this particular the States are independent of each other. A criminal, fugitive from one State to another, could not be claimed as of right to be given up. It is most true as mentioned by writers on the laws of Nations that every State is responsible—— [p. 1440]